I agree with this. Can think of an active thread right now that has been taken over by some posters and dominating it. Finally got so tired of it, I walked away.
At what point do you lose interest in a case?
- Thread starter meanmaryjean
- Start date
I agree with this. Can think of an active thread right now that has been taken over by some posters and dominating it. Finally got so tired of it, I walked away.
kdg411
Verified Family Friend Destiny Butler
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 120
Love your go get em attitude, really! Why don't you take a peak at the thread (s) on Sara Graham. I'm thinking thread three will be soon. And we're nowhere near figuring this one out. Any new ideas might help revive some people's thoughts. JMO We could use any help you might be able to offer.
ScarlettScarpetta
When the going gets tough, drink coffee
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2012
- Messages
- 12,690
- Reaction score
- 175
I tend to lose interest here on a case when people get too sidetracked by things that don't matter at all.
It does not mean I still don't follow or check news sources for updates but sometimes it is not worth the sanity of filtering it all out.
It does not mean I still don't follow or check news sources for updates but sometimes it is not worth the sanity of filtering it all out.
1. I generally lose interest once an arrest is made, unless it's a MWAB case or there's a good chance the suspect will be acquitted.
2. There's so much info that it's overwhelming and hard to sift through. Too many suspects, rumors, a really convoluted timeline, tons of WS threads etc. It becomes hard to separate speculation from information. Christina Morris is a good example: There's so much out there and way too many threads to read through (sorry, but I'm not going to read 38 entire threads with 40+ pages each) that I can't get into it, although I do check occasionally to see if she's been found.
3. I'm generally not interested in very recent cases (I define very recent as >3 years). There are a few that I'll follow, but I'm more of a cold case person.
4. This might be controversial, but: When there's a big media circus and (IMO) the only thing that even makes it unique is the fact that the main players are attractive and/or come from well-off families. Jodi Arias is the first person who comes to mind. Obviously there's no way I can ever prove this, but I am positive that that case would have NEVER gotten even 10% of the attention it did if Jodi and Travis weren't both attractive and there wasn't a steamy Mormon sex angle. At some point the whole case/trial turned into emotional *advertiser censored* for people to get outraged at and titillated by. Same with Casey Anthony.
On the other hand, I immediately become interested in a case if:
1. There's a serial killer involved,
2. The perpetrator either impersonated the victim or taunted the family/authorities,
3. If a recent case turns out to be linked to a cold case in any way,
4. The perpetrator is on trial for murder and the victim's body has never been recovered, or
5. The victim is unidentified (or was unidentified for a very long time)
2. There's so much info that it's overwhelming and hard to sift through. Too many suspects, rumors, a really convoluted timeline, tons of WS threads etc. It becomes hard to separate speculation from information. Christina Morris is a good example: There's so much out there and way too many threads to read through (sorry, but I'm not going to read 38 entire threads with 40+ pages each) that I can't get into it, although I do check occasionally to see if she's been found.
3. I'm generally not interested in very recent cases (I define very recent as >3 years). There are a few that I'll follow, but I'm more of a cold case person.
4. This might be controversial, but: When there's a big media circus and (IMO) the only thing that even makes it unique is the fact that the main players are attractive and/or come from well-off families. Jodi Arias is the first person who comes to mind. Obviously there's no way I can ever prove this, but I am positive that that case would have NEVER gotten even 10% of the attention it did if Jodi and Travis weren't both attractive and there wasn't a steamy Mormon sex angle. At some point the whole case/trial turned into emotional *advertiser censored* for people to get outraged at and titillated by. Same with Casey Anthony.
On the other hand, I immediately become interested in a case if:
1. There's a serial killer involved,
2. The perpetrator either impersonated the victim or taunted the family/authorities,
3. If a recent case turns out to be linked to a cold case in any way,
4. The perpetrator is on trial for murder and the victim's body has never been recovered, or
5. The victim is unidentified (or was unidentified for a very long time)
OkieGranny
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 21,516
- Reaction score
- 1,686
If a case turns out to be suicide, accident or some other death by misadventure, I'm out. It's a private matter once the body is recovered, nothing to sleuth.
If there was foul play involved, I'm in 'til the end. There's not nearly enough justice in this world, so it's really satisfying to witness when justice does manage to prevail. And heartbreaking when it doesn't.
There are many, many names I will always click on when they appear on the New Posts page. I may not be very active on most of them but I'm still there, keeping an eye on things.
If there was foul play involved, I'm in 'til the end. There's not nearly enough justice in this world, so it's really satisfying to witness when justice does manage to prevail. And heartbreaking when it doesn't.
There are many, many names I will always click on when they appear on the New Posts page. I may not be very active on most of them but I'm still there, keeping an eye on things.
wendybtn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Messages
- 6,208
- Reaction score
- 5,481
I have also noticed that when a case has been going on and has 2 or more threads, I start losing interest if a lot of people want to come in, in the middle and expect someone who has read and kept up the whole way, to stop and write a summary for them. I think you need to go back, read, get yourself updated, then ask a few questions.
OldSteve
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 4,946
- Reaction score
- 184
For me it's, "not when I lose interest in a case", but "when do I lose interest in a Websleulths thread" - by that I mean, once I follow a case, I remain interested in the case and reading MSN about it. But, when news is not forthcoming and a thread gets bogged down with rehashing, out-to-lunch theories, becomes split into sub-threads, etc... - I lose interest. MSM and family support threads are good, but wish there was middle ground of some sort... perhaps a limit of only one comment per member per day or between posted MSM stories....
Lilibet
Southern Oregon
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 19,631
- Reaction score
- 82,089
Great question! I move on for various reasons. After an arrest when a trial seems like it will never happen there isn't much to say. A suicide is so tragic and personal that it leaves nothing to say except kind words for those impacted. If a missing person is found alive and safe, I don't like to stay around and deal with indignant posters who are upset because the person "wasted time and resources." When a thread deteriorates into snark, dogmatism and trivial arguments, I'm gone. If I'm interested in the case, I might come back to see if the atmosphere has improved or try to shift the conversation (usually unsuccessfully). 
On the other hand, I'm very committed to a few missing persons threads that don't get much attention in Humboldt County CA where I used to live and in Southern Oregon where I live now. I try to post at least once a month or so to let friends and family of the victim know that someone cares. I check for news or post something from the FB page for the person. Even though nothing is happening, I won't leave those threads. I always feel less lonely there when I see "Thanks" from the few others keeping a vigil.
On the other hand, I'm very committed to a few missing persons threads that don't get much attention in Humboldt County CA where I used to live and in Southern Oregon where I live now. I try to post at least once a month or so to let friends and family of the victim know that someone cares. I check for news or post something from the FB page for the person. Even though nothing is happening, I won't leave those threads. I always feel less lonely there when I see "Thanks" from the few others keeping a vigil.
DexterMorgan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 8,480
- Reaction score
- 10,110
Great question! I move on for various reasons. After an arrest when a trial seems like it will never happen there isn't much to say. A suicide is so tragic and personal that it leaves nothing to say except kind words for those impacted. If a missing person is found alive and safe, I don't like to stay around and deal with indignant posters who are upset because the person "wasted time and resources." When a thread deteriorates into snark, dogmatism and trivial arguments, I'm gone. If I'm interested in the case, I might come back to see if the atmosphere has improved or try to shift the conversation (usually unsuccessfully).
On the other hand, I'm very committed to a few missing persons threads that don't get much attention in Humboldt County CA where I used to live and in Southern Oregon where I live now. I try to post at least once a month or so to let friends and family of the victim know that someone cares. I check for news or post something from the FB page for the person. Even though nothing is happening, I won't leave those threads. I always feel less lonely there when I see "Thanks" from the few others keeping a vigil.
Lilibet. Great post summary. But let's not forget the enormous threads. Example Jodi Arias. Lol. 400 posters commenting at the same time with no chance of a comment being noticed; Will send me fishing to another thread quick fast. Lol.
Lilibet
Southern Oregon
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 19,631
- Reaction score
- 82,089
That's why you didn't see me there, Dexter! I didn't even try to follow the Jodi Arias thread for the second penalty trial. The first trial left my head spinning, but it got me to join WS part way through. Thanks for the memories.
Jennibee
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2013
- Messages
- 649
- Reaction score
- 37
I think that is a tad unfair. When I was a new poster I was pretty scared to share my opinion in some threads. Also some threads are so long it's impossible to read through everything. I guess what I'm trying to say is we need to be open to all opinions unless it's a ludicrous theory etc. it's this kind of attitude which made me scared to post anything. If it's been said before - does it matter? We are all friends here...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Wing Ding
Trial Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2015
- Messages
- 770
- Reaction score
- 298
Personally speaking, I really don't lose interest in cases/trials once I start following them. There have been a few high-profile cases lately that I, for whatever reason, never became interested in (Marissa Devault, Andrea Sneiderman and Ana Trujillo), but for the cases whose trials I've followed in recent years (Casey Anthony, John Goodman, Dalia Dipolito, Bill MacNeill, Jodi Arias, George Zimmerman and Michael Dunne), I've follow them to the (sometimes) bitter end (Trayvon Martin). I was interested in the Phil Spector and Robert Blake murder trials but was too busy back then to follow on tv or online. I don't remember if OJ's criminal trial stemming from his Vegas hotel room heist was televised or not. If so, I missed that one too (though I do remember watching his sentencing live). Oh well.
When I was living down in Los Angeles I watched some of the Melendez brothers, OJ Simpson (criminal and civil), Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson trials but due to my hectic work schedule back then I never watched enough to make any real sense of them. I'd watch a few minutes of the trials live on local tv stations and then maybe see the daily update on the local news later that night, but that was about it for those trials. Of course my cable lineup didn't include Court TV back then either so that could be another reason I didn't put my life on hold to watch two out of four innocent people get acquitted.
The only case I really lost interest in was Haleigh Cummings. All I know is she was never arrested for the disappearance of the little girl she was babysitting because of lack of evidence but she was set up selling drugs to an undercover narc in the hopes cops could get her to talk about the girl in lieu of going to jail for a drug rap. I never did find out how that story ended.
My earliest memories of trials covered on old-fashioned channel 2-13 tv in the late 70's/early 80's (that I didn't watch on tv or read about in the newspapers) were the landmark "palimony" trial of Lee Marvin and Michelle Triola in the late 70's and the disturbing trial of the McMartin Pre School molestation trial in the early 80's. I heard a lot of people on tv talking about those two trials but I really didn't pay any attention to them at all.
The other big story I remember in the late 70's was the murder of Harvey Milk up in San Francisco. My Sociology teacher kept talking about it, but I only knew the very basics of what happened. Does anyone remember if that trial was televised locally up there?
I was too young to know about Tate/LaBianca, the Zodiac killer or the Onion Field murders but those did interest me enough as an adult to read the books on them.
Too bad I didn't find out about W.S. ten years ago like some of you here. Then again maybe that's a good thing. For a guy, I can be a real Chatty Cathy!
See?? ^ ^ ^ Sorry. What was the question again?
When I was living down in Los Angeles I watched some of the Melendez brothers, OJ Simpson (criminal and civil), Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson trials but due to my hectic work schedule back then I never watched enough to make any real sense of them. I'd watch a few minutes of the trials live on local tv stations and then maybe see the daily update on the local news later that night, but that was about it for those trials. Of course my cable lineup didn't include Court TV back then either so that could be another reason I didn't put my life on hold to watch two out of four innocent people get acquitted.
The only case I really lost interest in was Haleigh Cummings. All I know is she was never arrested for the disappearance of the little girl she was babysitting because of lack of evidence but she was set up selling drugs to an undercover narc in the hopes cops could get her to talk about the girl in lieu of going to jail for a drug rap. I never did find out how that story ended.
My earliest memories of trials covered on old-fashioned channel 2-13 tv in the late 70's/early 80's (that I didn't watch on tv or read about in the newspapers) were the landmark "palimony" trial of Lee Marvin and Michelle Triola in the late 70's and the disturbing trial of the McMartin Pre School molestation trial in the early 80's. I heard a lot of people on tv talking about those two trials but I really didn't pay any attention to them at all.
The other big story I remember in the late 70's was the murder of Harvey Milk up in San Francisco. My Sociology teacher kept talking about it, but I only knew the very basics of what happened. Does anyone remember if that trial was televised locally up there?
I was too young to know about Tate/LaBianca, the Zodiac killer or the Onion Field murders but those did interest me enough as an adult to read the books on them.
Too bad I didn't find out about W.S. ten years ago like some of you here. Then again maybe that's a good thing. For a guy, I can be a real Chatty Cathy!
See?? ^ ^ ^ Sorry. What was the question again?
teeandcee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2012
- Messages
- 911
- Reaction score
- 534
Once I'm interested I really never lose that interest, but I do become significantly less obsessed if it gets too complicated regarding either timelines or players (I'm thinking of the Holly Bobo case here) or there's simply no new info coming out. An arrest will cause my obsession to die down most times.
Since I remain very interested but not obsessed I keep an eye out for any books written about the case. I'm hoping someone writes a thorough book on the Hannah Graham/Morgan Harrington case in particular.
I tend to not follow the big cases. I know very little about JonBenet, Jodi Arias, Casey Anthony, McCanns, etc.
Since I remain very interested but not obsessed I keep an eye out for any books written about the case. I'm hoping someone writes a thorough book on the Hannah Graham/Morgan Harrington case in particular.
I tend to not follow the big cases. I know very little about JonBenet, Jodi Arias, Casey Anthony, McCanns, etc.
Bohemian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,376
- Reaction score
- 16,591
When the alleged perpetrator(s) are arrested and charged and/or when justice is served (to the best of its ability). I only follow/start a few threads on my country's crimes. Quantity is definitely not quality so I have an extensive 'exclusion' list other than 'my' threads or the days' New Posts.
Bohemian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,376
- Reaction score
- 16,591
Great question! I move on for various reasons. After an arrest when a trial seems like it will never happen there isn't much to say. A suicide is so tragic and personal that it leaves nothing to say except kind words for those impacted. If a missing person is found alive and safe, I don't like to stay around and deal with indignant posters who are upset because the person "wasted time and resources." When a thread deteriorates into snark, dogmatism and trivial arguments, I'm gone. If I'm interested in the case, I might come back to see if the atmosphere has improved or try to shift the conversation (usually unsuccessfully).
On the other hand, I'm very committed to a few missing persons threads that don't get much attention in Humboldt County CA where I used to live and in Southern Oregon where I live now. I try to post at least once a month or so to let friends and family of the victim know that someone cares. I check for news or post something from the FB page for the person. Even though nothing is happening, I won't leave those threads. I always feel less lonely there when I see "Thanks" from the few others keeping a vigil.
Amen Lillibet.
Bohemian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,376
- Reaction score
- 16,591
It is unfair, Jennibee. No single person has a monopoly on 'caring' about VoC. Also, a new poster's detachment from any previous discussions can breathe a 'breath of fresh air' into a previously stalled thread. One thing I can't stand on WS is bullying but, thankfully capable mods have that well in hand. WS has a zero tolerance for that type if behaviour, thank Goodness. On the other hand, don't take other people's opinions too much to heart. After all, we're all entitled to an opinion as long as it doesn't break WS' rules. So post away!